Tuesday, January 31, 2012

"Would you like to know a definition of radically insane? How about you or your child being forced to participate in experimental vaccine trials?

Somehow right off the bat the idea of forced participation in experimental vaccine trials reminds me of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment the U.S. government undertook that was profoundly and morally wrong.

“For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects,” Associated Press reporter Jean Heller wrote on July 25, 1972. “The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body.” http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/

According to a paper published by the American Medical Association’s Virtual Mentor, current enrollment in vaccine trials is extremely low. There is now talk of creating a federal law to force individuals to ‘opt-out’ of vaccine trials for the greater good of society. Read the paper here: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/01/pfor1-1201.html

Authors Susanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer float the idea of creating a system where a law forces an individual to make a “mandated choice” to participate in vaccine trials. This suggested policy not only is dangerously naïve but downright unconstitutional and ought to be regarded as such by every entity whether medical, legal, or taxpayer.

In reality, what is being proposed is complete medical tyranny. Here’s why…

Mandatory Participation Creates a Customer List for Big Pharma

It sounds harmless. Hey, they even suggested we have a ‘mandated choice’, right? In order to see the bigger picture, we need to take this logic a few steps further.

For example, everyone would be required to enroll into a database. This is the case now even if you exempt your child from vaccines! Yes! You’re still in a database. What about HIPAA violations and privacy rules? Don’t they apply?

The ‘volunteer’ information would have to be shared with the Pharmaceutical Companies, which is the full intent, so as to gather trial and field test data Big Pharma can document before introducing a new product to FDA for approval. Of course, Pharma could call upon those who would want to volunteer.

What if they couldn’t get the numbers they needed – then what?

My prediction is they’d either force citizens to participate, or use a helpless population that could be gathered from any segment of society they designate. The Willowbrook Institution ‘studies’ in New York is an example of ‘how they do things’.

Just in case you’re not familiar with the travesty at Willowbrook, Dr. Saul Krugman fed feces to children in order to test the effectiveness of the Hepatitis B vaccine they were researching to produce. Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School

Truly, can it get any more sinister? I think it can.

Here’s even more proof.

Vaccine Manufacturers Are Protected From Lawsuits if Your Child is Harmed

Please remember this point: If your child is given a vaccine and harmed, vaccine manufacturers are not responsible financially or morally.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986 shields vaccine manufacturers from any liability. If vaccines are 99.99% safe, as medical professionals tell us, having such a law doesn’t make much sense.

That law is a travesty of justice and should be rescinded by Congress who put it into place at the apparent behest of Big Pharma and its thousands of lobbyists with deep pockets informing members of Congress how to go about establishing Big Pharma’s corporate governance.

Nevertheless, the next logical question to answer would be, “What happens if your child is harmed?”

I speak from personal experience—my son is vaccine damaged—when I say there is little help waiting for you. Parents of vaccine-injured children are discovering the next-to-impossible task of being compensated by the government vaccine court.

Parents also ought to be aware pharmaceutical companies treat children with callous disregard, especially in vaccine trials. A recent article written by Christina England spells out how pharmaceutical researchers skew adverse reactions to vaccines to make it look like the vaccine is safe, when it is not. Read how premature babies had vaccines tested on them here: http://vactruth.com/2012/01/23/babies-used-as-lab-rats/

But what if vaccine injuries take other forms, like causing cancer?

We should also be mindful of the long-term effects, too, especially recombinant DNA.

Even if viruses causing cancer, among other things, subsequently are discovered in the vaccine—as was the case with the polio vaccine of the 1950s and ‘60s—past experience shows government will keep the vaccines on the shelves. They don’t want to risk eroding confidence in any aspect of the vaccine program.

Their job is to protect Big Pharma’s apparent policy over the health of your child. If you think you or your child will be compensated, expect years of dealing with government bureaucracy and probable rejection, as thousands of families experience to date.

Summary

Parents are told pharmaceutical companies exist for the ‘Greater Good’ of society. Yet, a quick check on the Department of Justice website shows that major Pharma corporations have been convicted of serious criminal offenses with only ‘slaps on the wrists’—monetary fines, unless there have been class action law suits filed in which harmed individuals sometimes receive compensation for pain and suffering.

Give me a break!

Any time a law has to be created mandating participation, you can bet there’s BIG money involved! As I mentioned above, such a law would give Big Pharma a guaranteed customer list plus immunity from injuring the ‘volunteers’. Can pharmaceutical companies get a much sweeter deal? I don’t think so; how about you?

The suggestion of mandating participation in medical trials has no place in a free society. It ought to go where it rightly belongs – in the trash along with their vaccines."

"Cancer is not some predestined gene-bomb setting itself off within us, rather, a logical result of decades worth of cell shock/damage/adaptation to environmental poisoning, nutrient deprivation and psycho-spiritual stress. These cells have learned to survive the constant abuse, and flip into survival mode which is self-centered, hyper-proliferative (constant self-repair/replication) and aggressive (metastatic).

In a remarkable new essay by Mark Vincent this view has found its vindication. Entitled: "Cancer: A de-repression of a default survival program common to all cells?: A life-history perspective on the nature of cancer," cancer is viewed in an entirely new light:

"Cancer viewed as a programmed, evolutionarily conserved life-form, rather than just a random series of disease-causing mutations, answers the rarely asked question of what the cancer cell is for, provides meaning for its otherwise mysterious suite of attributes, and encourages a different type of thinking about treatment."

Additionally:

"The broad but consistent spectrum of traits, well-recognized in all aggressive cancers, group naturally into three categories: taxonomy ("phylogenation"), atavism ("re-primitivization") and robustness ("adaptive resilience"). The parsimonious explanation is not convergent evolution, but the release of an highly conserved survival program, honed by the exigencies of the Pre-Cambrian, to which the cancer cell seems better adapted; and which is recreated within, and at great cost to, its host."

What Mark Vincent explains here is cancer as a regression (atavism/re-primitivization) of the human normal cell type, to a more ancient and robust cell type possessed by an ancestral cell lineage in pre-Cambrian times, well over 542 million years ago. If this is true, given the right (or wrong) conditions, normal cells may regress to a more primitive, far more individualistic cell phenotype in an attempt to survive (if not thrive) within the biochemical/bioenergetic adversities characteristic of the sickened, cancer-prone body.

The concept of regression to more ancient forms of incarnation within biology is not novel. The well-known principle of "ontogeny" recapitulates "phylogeny" in embryogenesis, also known as the "recapitulation theory," for instance, proposes that the fetus' development follows exactly the same sequence as the sequence of its evolutionary ancestors. There is, in other words, inscribed within our genetic code a history of all past cellular/organismal incarnations, which while normally dormant, can be re-awakened when necessary to provide survival advantages. Who after all can say that cancer cells or tumors far from representing pure chaos (mutational view of cancer causation) are not symptoms of an attempt to heal, or regain balance within less-than-ideal conditions, when no other viable options remain?

What may be most important about this new view on cancer are its existential implications. After all, if cancer is not just something that by luck of the draw, does not happen to this person, while happening to that person, but actually has meaning, then perhaps we can begin to de-program ourselves from the rampant fatalism that undergirds the popular sentiment that cancer is to be both loathed and feared, but never quite understood.

Of course, the fatalism associated with cancer is heavily reinforced by the very organizations (largely self-appointed) in charge of "awareness campaigns" and "fund-raising" in the increasingly gaudy and blatantly cynical "cause marketing" programs that have proliferated (like the cancers themselves) into every facet of American, consumerism-based culture. The ideology of "watchful waiting" through increasingly invasive screening procedures consistently reinforces this fundamental fatalism. Cancer is subconsciously drawn to those who would do no more than wait for its inevitable bodily emergence.

People are told what they can do to "reduce risk," but not that the end-point itself (cancer) would become avoidable if we sought to better understand it, i.e. knowing the cause enables you to mitigate and/or remove it. This active process of programming and ceaselessly reinforcing people to think of disease in terms of calculating and "reducing risk," is heavily reinforced by the dominance of mathematical epidemiology in today's practice of medicine. Ultimately, it shifts the locus of power from the patient to the medical system whose priest-like claim to truth, obtained through complex algebraic equations and technologies so elaborate as to perplex even their engineers and manufacturers, puts them in the position of having the same type of control over our bodies as once did the religious clergy our souls.

Once we begin to comprehend that the radically unnatural shift in the cell's immediate environment, due to chemical exposures/nutrient deficiencies/chronic and acute psycho-spiritual stress, promotes its "neoplastic transformation" into cancer, we can begin to liberate ourselves from many avoidable and treatable causes of this archetypal human condition.

For additional research our Cancer Research Page, for instance, contains 2,625 articles from the National Library of Medicine on 612 natural substances with documented potential value in cancer prevention or treatment, including 500 on curcumin alone. It also contains research on 144 "problem substances" which exhibit carcinogenic potential, as well as 30 "therapeutic actions," e.g. yoga, sunlight exposure, which have anti-cancer effects.

Also, for additional reflections on the nature of cancer, read the essay: The Flame of Cell Life-Death In the Miracle of Regeneration"

"(NaturalNews) In order to simulate various flavors in processed foods, some food manufacturers are actually using aborted fetal cells to test and produce these artificial chemical enhancers that millions of Americans consume every single day. Concerned about the ethical and moral implications of such a process, Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey has introduced new legislation to prohibit this practice from occurring in his home state.

Senomyx, a California-based biotechnology company that specializes in developing food flavorings, is one such company that uses aborted embryonic cells to create "isolated human taste receptors," which are used in the production of food chemicals. And this company has partnered with several major food manufacturers, including Kraft, PepsiCo, and Nestle (http://www.naturalnews.com/032043_human_fetal_cells_artificial_flavors.html).

"There is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors," Sen. Shortey is quoted as saying by KRMG News Talk Radio. "What I am saying is that if it does happen then we are not going to allow it to manufacture here."

According to Children of God for Life (CGL), a pro-life watchdog group, Senomyx uses HEK 293 to produce its artificial flavor enhancing chemicals. HEK 293 is code for human embryonic kidney cells that are manipulated to produce taste receptors that express a specific protein known as the G protein. But CGL says the company could also use animal, insect, or other more acceptably-derived cells instead, and still procure the same results.

While aborted fetal cells are not necessarily in the final products made by PepsiCo, Kraft, or Nestle, such cells appear to needlessly play a part in the production of artificial flavor chemicals used by these companies. And since there are viable alternatives to this questionable practice, Sen. Shortey, CGL, and many others are calling for its end.

As we reported previously, the Campbell Soup company used to be a Senomyx partner until CGL contacted them about the fetal cell issue. Shortly thereafter, reports indicate that Campbell's officially cut ties with Senomyx, which in 2003 filed a patent for "recombinant (genetically modified) methods for expressing a functional sweet taste receptor."

"(NaturalNews) "Will vaccinate my baby for food!" That seems to be the goal of a program launched last year by the UnitedHealthcare health insurance company of Michigan. It has resorted to enticing parents with junk food to convince them to inject their infants with potentially deadly vaccines containing brain-damaging chemicals. This has been revealed in a letter acquired by NaturalNews and signed by Stephanie Esters, a vaccine-pushing RN who works for UnitedHealthcare.

The letter declares "Get a FREE $20 McDonalds, Rite Aid, Target or Meijer Gift Card when your child gets recommended shots before their second birthday." It even goes on to offer a "FREE ride to the doctor" for those who are so poor that they don't own cars.

Childhood vaccines, of course, are loaded with extremely toxic chemical adjuvants -- chemicals designed to cause neurological inflammation in order to invoke an immunological reaction. Vaccines also contain both mercury and aluminum, both of which are highly toxic brain poisons. This is why many children who are injected with such vaccines become autistic virtually overnight (their brains are poisoned beyond their biological threshold).

While the fundamental science of inoculation is debatable, the adding of neuro-toxic chemicals to today's vaccines -- which are then injected into children in huge numbers (over 100 vaccines given to a typical child) -- turns them into chemical weapons being used to medically assault innocent children. Marrying this chemical weapons program with a junk food incentive program is the height of medical stupidity. It makes about as much sense as eating fried chicken to cure breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/028631_Komen_for_the_cure_pinkwashing.html).

Such a program obviously targets lower-income families which tend to be predominantly black or Latino, according to national statistics. The RN behind this nauseating vaccinate-for-food campaign is Stephanie Esters, an African American woman, demonstrating the black-on-black medical violence being committed against African American children in America every day.

Rewarding vaccines with toxic junk food?

Perhaps the most outrageous part of this entire eugenics scheme which may have already killed an unknown number of little black babies is that the reward for being injected with neurologically-damaging chemical vaccines is a gift certificate for disease-promoting "dead" junk food.

It's clearly an encouragement for parents to feed their babies obesity-inducing junk food that will also promote diabetes (rampant among blacks), prostate cancer (super deadly among black men) and breast cancer (a huge money-maker for the criminal cancer industry which preys upon black women). Wash it down with a cocktail of phosphoric acid and aspartame -- also known as a "diet soda" -- and then give yourself even more cancer and heart disease with some fries!

This is what United Healthcare encourages its customers to do? Are they so stupid that they do not realize such eating habits will increase the health-related claims against their own company?

Obviously, if UnitedHealthcare actually wanted to improve the health of low-income children in Michigan, they would reward them with a bottle of nutritional supplements or superfoods. Give the kid some organic CocoChia bars from Living Fuel! Or buy some Boku Superfood for the family!

But no, the reward for being injected with chemical vaccines is more chemicals courtesy of the hormone-injected, antibiotics-laced, GMO-fed toxic processed beef garbage sold by McDonald's. Did you know their Chicken McNuggets are made with a silicone chemical that's also used in Silly Putty? (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html)

Vaccine incentive programs increasingly prey on those living in poverty

The most disturbing trend in vaccine marketing today is that grocery stores and pharmacies are now resorting to marketing gimmicks and giveaways to entice parents into injecting their children with potentially deadly vaccines.

Safeway stores, for example, recently announced a 10% discount off grocery purchases for those who agreed to be vaccinated on the spot. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033880_flu_shots_grocery_stores.html) NaturalNews also caught Walgreens stores rewarding their own employees with iPad prizes if they "recruited" customers to get injected with a vaccine shot. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033859_flu_shots_Walgreens.html)

This is all part of the vaccine eugenics agenda, of course, which specifically targets minorities and low-income families. Obviously a well-to-do family isn't going to be enticed by $20 worth of McDonald's junk food, but a poorly-informed mother living paycheck to paycheck -- just barely scraping by on government assistance programs -- may be more than willing to trade the health of her child for a $20 meal at McDonald's. Especially if all the nurses and doctors assure her that vaccines are good for her children... and vaccines never cause autism, she will be told.

The whole point of vaccines is, of course, to depopulate the planet through infertility side effects or direct mortality of those receiving the vaccines. This has been openly and unambiguously admitted by the No. 1 financial contributor to vaccine research around the world -- Mr. Bill Gates. In an open, public speech recorded on video, Mr. Gates explains that vaccines can help reduce world population.

Here's another thing everybody needs to know about children and vaccines: The healthiest children you'll ever meet are the ones whose parents refuse to vaccinated them.

Nearly all the sick kids are the very same ones who have been injected multiple times, poked and prodded by pediatricians, and whose parents follow "conventional" medical advice about avoiding vitamins and putting their children on medication. These are the sniveling, sneezing kids who are plagued by allergies and autoimmune disorders. They're the kids who get diagnosed with brain tumors at age 9, or who end up with type-2 diabetes in their twenties. The toxic load of all the vaccines and medications -- combined with the total lack of real nutrition and mineralization -- puts these kids on track to be total medical police state slaves for the rest of their lives.

And that's the way the medical police state wants it, of course: Everybody sickened, helpless, victimized and lacking even the cognitive awareness to know what's happening to them. Today's vaccine rewards programs promote this outcome by pushing both toxic vaccines and disease-promoting junk foods at the same time: "Here, poison your babies and win a free meal!" It's sickening.

How do I get my $20 McDonald's, Rite Aid, Target or Meijer gift card?Just take this letter with your child to the doctor or health department. Present the backside of the letter. Get the missing shots. Your child must be eligible with GLHP at the time the shots are given. Have the staff at the doctor's office or health department sign the form on the back of this letter. Then mail the form to us. We must get this form back no later than 30 days after your child's second birthday. You will receive your gift card in the mail once we receive proof that your child got the shots.

Best wishes for a healthy future,- Stephanie Esters, RN

Stephanie Esters, by the way, can be reached at sesters@uhc.com or 248-331-4369.

Stealing your baby's blood?

Esters is also involved in a child blood screening program. In a canned YouTube video that is obviously scripted word-for-word (so fake!), she insists they are taking childrens' blood for "lead screening" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apZhylyJEjo).

The truth is that medical personnel across the country are routinely engaged in the theft of your baby's DNA to be used in a government database. This isn't some wild conspiracy theory; it's a widely-acknowledged fact. Those who have never heard about this simply haven't been in the loop. It's openly admitted. All sorts of lawsuits have been filed over this, and you can read up on the issue at the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom: http://www.cchfreedom.org/issue.php/14

Blood money

UnitedHealthcare also uses McDonald's gift certificates to entice parents into allowing their children's blood to be taken. As explained in the company's own literature:

LEAD SCREENING: United-Healthcare Great Lakes quality outreach staff will call you when your child needs to get his or her second lead screening. ...Have the form signed and send it back to us. We will send you a Target or Mcdonald's gift card. Your child's name will also be entered in a monthly drawing for a $150 MasterCard gift card.

That same document offers a chance to win a $150 MasterCard gift card if you make a second appointment with your doctor after becoming a new mom:

"POSTPARTUM CARE: If you have your postpartum visit on time, you can get another Target gift card. Your name will also be entered in a monthly drawing for a $150 MasterCard gift card. Call your OB doctor's office right after you deliver your baby."

Doctors and residents blame US weapons for catastrophic levels of birth defects in Fallujah’s newborns.

Dahr Jamail

Fallujah, Iraq – While the US military has formally withdrawn from Iraq, doctors and residents of Fallujah are blaming weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous used during two devastating US attacks on Fallujah in 2004 for what are being described as “catastrophic” levels of birth defects and abnormalities.

Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.

“We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine,” Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.

As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.

“There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we’ve never seen them until now,” she said. “So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I’m unable to provide a medical term.”Most of these babies in Fallujah die within 20 to 30 minutes after being born, but not all.

Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.

Abdul has trouble controlling his muscles, struggles to walk, cannot control his bladder, and weakens easily. Doctors told his father, Mohamed Jaleel Abdul Rahim, that his son has severe nervous system problems, and could develop fluid build-up in his brain as he ages, which could prove fatal.

“This is the first instance of something like this in all our family,” Rahim told Al Jazeera. “We lived in an area that was heavily bombed by the Americans in 2004, and a missile landed right in front of our home. What else could cause these health problems besides this?”

Dr Alani told Al Jazeera that in the vast majority of cases she has documented, the family had no prior history of congenital abnormalities.

Alani showed Al Jazeera hundreds of photos of babies born with cleft palates, elongated heads, a baby born with one eye in the centre of its face, overgrown limbs, short limbs, and malformed ears, noses and spines.

She told Al Jazeera of cases of “thanatophoric dysplasia”, an abnormality in bones and the thoracic cage that “render the newborn incompatible with life”.Rahim said many of his relatives that have had babies after 2004 are having problems as well.

“One of them was born and looks like a fish,” Rahim said. “I also personally know of at least three other families who live near us who have these problems also.”

For now, the family is worried how Abdul will fare in school when he is enrolled next year. Maloud Ahmed Jassim, Abdul’s grandfather, added, “We’ve seen so many miscarriages happen, and we don’t know why.”

“The growth on his back is so sensitive and painful for him,” Rahim said. “What will happen in school?”

Jassim is angered by a lack of thorough investigations into the health crisis.

“Why is the government not investigating this,” he asked. “Western media seem interested, but neither our local media nor the government are. Why not?”

In April 2011, Iraqi lawmakers debated whether the US attacks on the city constituted genocide. Resolutions that called for international prosecution, however, went nowhere.

Alani, along with Dr Christopher Busby, a British scientist and activist who has carried out research into the risks of radioactive pollution, collected hair samples from 25 parents of families with children who have birth defects and sent them to a laboratory in Germany for analysis.

Alani and Busby, along with other doctors and researchers, published a study in September 2011 from data obtained by analysing the hair samples, as well as soil and water samples from the city.

Mercury, Uranium, Bizmuth and other trace elements were found.

The report’s conclusion states:

“Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields.”

“As doctors, we know Mercury, Uranium and Bismuth can contribute to the development of congenital abnormalities, and we think it could be related to the use of prohibited weapons by the Americans during these battles,” Alani said.

“Findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases,” says a recent scientific report on the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah [Dr Samira Alani]“I made this link to a coroner’s inquest in the West Midlands into the death of a Gulf War One veteran… and a coroner’s jury accepted my evidence,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It’s been found by a coroner’s court that cancer was caused by an exposure to depleted uranium,” Busby added, “In the last 10 years, research has emerged that has made it quite clear that uranium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man, certainly in the form that it takes when used in these wars.”

In July 2010, Busby released a study that showed a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in Fallujah since the 2004 attacks. The report also showed the sex ratio had declined from normal to 86 boys to 100 girls, together with a spread of diseases indicative of genetic damage similar to but of far greater incidence than Hiroshima.

Dr Alani visited Japan recently, where she met with Japanese doctors who study birth defect rates they believe related to radiation from the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

She was told birth defect incidence rates there are between 1-2 per cent. Alani’s log of cases of birth defects amounts to a rate of 14.7 per cent of all babies born in Fallujah, more than 14 times the rate in the affected areas of Japan.

In Babil Province in southern Iraq, the head of the Babil Cancer Centre, Dr Sharif al-Alwachi, said cancer rates have been escalating at alarming rates since 2003, for which he blames the use of depleted uranium weapons by US forces during and following the 2003 invasion.

“The environment could be contaminated by chemical weapons and depleted uranium from the aftermath of the war on Iraq,” Dr Alwachi told Al Jazeera. “The air, soil and water are all polluted by these weapons, and as they come into contact with human beings they become poisonous. This is new to our region, and people are suffering here.”

The US and UK militaries have sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, but Iraqi doctors like Alwachi and Alani, and along with researchers, blame the increasing cancer and birth defect rates on the weapon.

Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of Uranium in Iraq, has been researching the effects of depleted uranium on Iraqis since 1991. He told Al Jazeera he personally measured radiation levels in the city of Kerbala, as well as in Basra, and his Geiger counter was “screaming” because “the indicator went beyond the range”.

Alani explained that she is the only doctor in Fallujah registering cases of congenital abnormalities.

“We have no system to register all of them, so we have so many cases we are missing,” she said. “Just yesterday a colleague told me of a newborn with thanatophoric dysplasia and she did not register it. I think I only know of 40-50 per cent of the cases because so many families have their babies at home and we never know of these, and other clinics are not registering them either.”

The hospital where Alani does her work was constructed in the Dhubadh district of Fallujah in 2008. According to Alani, the district was bombed heavily during the November 2004 siege.

“There is also a primary school that was built nearby, and from that school alone three teachers developed breast cancer, and now two of them are dead,” Alani said. “We get so many cases from this area, right where the hospital is.”

Even with a vast amount of anecdotal evidence, the exact cause of the health crisis in Fallujah is currently inconclusive without an in-depth, comprehensive study, which has yet to be carried out.

But despite lack of governmental support, and very little support from outside Iraq, Alani is determined to continue her work.

“I will not leave this subject”, she told Al Jazeera. “I will not stop.”

"FRANCE HAS held firm in its opposition to Monsanto’s genetically modified MON 810 maize – and the agri-chemical multinational has admitted defeat.

Monsanto had been putting legal pressure on the French government to lift its 2008 cultivation ban on MON 810, firstly with a successful appeal to the European Court of Justice, then with a follow-up case heard in France’s own highest court, the Council of State.

But despite both these institutions ruling that the ban was “insufficiently justified in law”, the French Government, backed by President Sarkozy, has insisted that it will still not allow cultivation of the biotech maize.

Now Monsanto has announced that it would not be selling seeds for MON810 in France this year.

France’s stand – and Monsanto’s capitulation – has been warmly welcomed by anti-GM lobbyists GM Freeze, whose campaign director Pete Riley said: “The decision by Monsanto not to market MON810 seeds in France in 2012 is yet another sign that Monsanto has failed to convince the public or policy makers that there is any benefit to growing to growing GM crops.“This needs to be acknowledged by industry and politicians and there should be a big shift to agricultural research and development which addresses the future sustainability of farming in Europe. EU policy needs to forget about the bottom line of biotech corporations and focus on developing agro-ecological farming which provides for the needs of farmers, consumers, the environment and future generations.”

Five other EU countries – Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary – have current bans on MON810 cultivation in place, and the issue has recently been complicated by another European Court of Justice ruling requiring honey contaminated with GM pollen to be fully authorised as a novel product and labelled as such before it can be sold."

Saturday, January 28, 2012

"A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects."

Thursday, January 26, 2012

"Watch this amazing chance encounter with a troop of wild mountain gorillas near Bwindi National Park, Uganda. Be patient for the first minute of the video, which is an introduction to the footage you’re about to see. It’s well worth the wait…I promise you’ve never seen anything like this."

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

"The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that "India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone - a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded."

This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI's pronouncements all the more suspect.1

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative's own statistics2 there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI's measurement of success? For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI's recent declaration of India as nearing "polio free" status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a manmade (iatrogenic) one.

VAPP is, in fact, the predominant form of the disease in developed countries like the US since 1973.3 The problem of vaccine-induced polio paralysis was so severe that the The United States moved to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 2000, after the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended altogether eliminating the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV), which is still used throughout the third world, despite the known risks.

Polio underscores the need for a change in the way we look at so-called "vaccine preventable" diseases as a whole. In most people with a healthy immune system, a poliovirus infection does not even generate symptoms. Only rarely does the infection produce minor symptoms, e.g. sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal disturbances, and influenza-like illness. In only 3% of infections does virus gain entry to the central nervous system, and then, in only 1-5 in 1000 cases does the infection progress to paralytic disease.

Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world's vaccines are given to the third world as "charity," when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can't vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India's new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the "cure" may be far worse than the disease itself."

These are amongst the many substrates present in the huge cultivation soup tanks which are used in vaccine production. The implications may be horrendous.

DNA RESIDUE IN VACCINES

The presence in the final vaccines of residue (“adventitious agents”) including cells and fragments of DNA from foreign tissue is certainly realistic.

CDC ADMITS THE PROBLEM

“- Many novel vaccines are produced in animal cell substrates, and emerging infectious diseases may theoretically be transmitted from animals to humans through these vaccines. The challenge of identifying potential adventitious agents in vaccines closely parallels the challenge of identifying the agents causing particular emerging infectious diseases.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631857/pdf/11485673.pdf

The concept of unknown ingredients in vaccines is at least as frightening as the ones which are known. Some substances are unknown even to vaccine manufacturers. As analysis methods become more advanced, more substances are discovered unexpectedly in vaccines which may have been on the market for a long time.

CANCER CAUSING MONKEY VIRUS SV40 IN POLIO VACCINE

One example of many is the unexpected discovery of SV40 from monkey kidney cells which was one of several dozen viruses that contaminated the original Salk and Sabin polio vaccines administered to millions of people worldwide.

“- it has been alleged that there have been SV40- contaminated batches of oral polio vaccine administered to some children until the end of the 1990’s.” http://www.sv40foundation.org/

“- many of the contaminant organisms can pass from generation to generation. For example, new studies have found that SV-40, a major contaminant of the polio vaccine until 1963, not only existed as a latent virus for the lifetime of those exposed to the vaccine but was being passed on to the next generation, primarily by way of sperm, something called vertical transmission. This means that every generation from now on will be infected with this known carcinogenic virus. There is also compelling evidence that some polio vaccines manufactured after 1963 may contain SV-40 virus. What makes the SV-40 contamination disaster of such concern is its association with so many cancers…” http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/if-you-are-in-support-of-vaccinations/

FDA ADMITS THAT SV40 CAUSES CANCER

“ – Millions received SV40-contaminated pRhMK-produced polio and adenovirus vaccines in the late 50s and early 60s”.

“-Examples include contamination of yellow fever vaccine with hepatitis B virus in the 1940s, contamination of early polio and adenovirus vaccines with simian virus 40 in the late1950s and early 1960s, contamination of blood products with hepatitis viruses and HIV, and contamination of dura mater grafts with the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease agent. In these examples, either human or animal materials used in production usually caused the contamination.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631857/pdf/11485673.pdf

MMR AND YELLOW FEVER VACCINES CONTAIN CANCER GENES

“- vaccines, especially those relying upon animal tissue to culture viruses during the manufacturing process—the influenza, the MMR, and yellow fever vaccines—are known to be highly contaminated with foreign animal viruses (including Avian Leukosis Virus and Equine Arteritis Virus), genetic fragments of such viruses, oncogenes (genes that turn normal cells cancerous), and prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases and neurological disorders in animals and humans).”

Here are some illustrations of how vaguely the testing for detection of adventitious agents is specified by the authorities:

FDA: “-Several promising areas of research suggest that experimental assays to detect unknown adventitious agents could soon become more generally available. As such assays become available, they could be considered for use in qualifying novel cell substrates, including neoplastic cell substrates.” http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3750b1_01.htm

FDA: “- Thus, ensuring that vaccine products that are administered to the public do not contain adventitious agents is a regulatory goal.”

In pharmaceutical production there are never two batches which are the same with respect to test results, be they physical, chemical or microbiological etc. This applies to all injections including vaccines.

One operates in regions, for example: the amount of an ingredient must be within +10% to – 10% of the stated amount.

A certain (small) percentage from each batch is tested and it is deduced from these results whether or not the whole batch should be approved.

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF INJECTING FOREIGN DNA

“ – DNA is used from such organisms as animals, animal viruses, fungi, and bacteria. It has been documented that injecting foreign DNA in a human may cause it, or a portion of it, to be incorporated into the recipient’s DNA. The horrendous implications for the unborn defy the imagination.” http://healthwyze.org/index.php/vaccine-secrets.html

“- most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments. And, further, our science demonstrates that these contaminants could lead to a number of slowly-developing degenerative diseases, including degenerative diseases of the brain.” http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/if-you-are-in-support-of-vaccinations/

“- The risks of residual retinal DNA and stray viral contaminants from the animal tissues getting into flu shots are real. DNA snips are classified as either “infectious” or “oncogenic” (tumour causing) by researchers who worry that the stray DNA is being incorporated into the recipient’s DNA …” http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri123.htm

“Manufacturers have been instructed to ensure the final vaccine contains less than 1 million residual animal cells and the amount of stray DNA is less than 10 ng. per vaccine. These regulations admit that animal DNA is injected into human babies and adults with every shot.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri123.htm

“ – FDA also admits concerns about cancer-causing possibility from all types of cell lines. The question begging to be answered is, knowing the potential risks of using cell lines to create vaccines, why is research using cell line technologies allowed to be used at all?”

“ – It is impossible to remove DNA contaminants from vaccines. Although weight limits for contaminating DNA were set by the FDA as far back as 1986, vaccine makers have never been able to reach that goal. The CDC decided to limit their weight recommendation to cancerous cell lines and then increase the other DNA contamination allowance one hundred-fold. However, these limits are only “recommendations” and, therefore, the FDA is unable to enforce them. Vaccine manufacturers continue to have the freedom to take scientific measures to reduce contaminants only if they wish. http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14455

This level of contamination (10 nanograms) only applies to a single vaccine. Children today are inoculated with many vaccines before entering school, each with unique DNA and viral contaminants due to the specific cell substrates used for a given vaccine.

This toxic genetic soup is what then flows through a vaccinated person’s body.”

SO WHAT ABOUT THE FLY IN OUR SOUP?

It may not do any harm at all, especially if it has been well heated in the soup!

However, all injected substances including insect fragments bypass the body’s intricate defense mechanism. The same substances which are harmless when ingested are shown to be extremely detrimental to health when injected. This is learned by medical students and others, but many doctors, health authorities and other vaccine promoters appear to ignore this basic fact.

WHERE’S THE LOGIC?

It is thought provoking that doctors and nurses swab the skin with disinfectant to remove some microbes, then jab and force into our children a contaminated, poisonous, genotoxic, disease and cancer causing vaccine soup!"

Are we really surprised? Bill Gates is the same man that publicly stated the benefits of using vaccines to reduce the world's population! The Bill Gates Foundation funds millions of dollars worth of vaccines. The man is a sociopath.

"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock. Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of genetically modified food, which has been tied to numerous health ailments such as sterility and infant mortality.

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet.

Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for “patent infringement.” Monsanto was declared company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2009, despite its history of agricultural abuses. Monsanto has also been accused of dumping toxic waste in residential areas, resulting in a variety of severe health disorders.

While reading the results of a vaccination trial on premature babies funded by GlaxoSmithKline, I noticed something was not quite right.

The trial, whilst sickening in itself, was testing out the rotavirus vaccine on a group of 988 premature babies ranging between 27 weeks and 36 weeks.

The paper reporting the trial was published on the ‘Pediatric SuperSite’ and was entitled ‘Human rotavirus immunogenic, well-tolerated for preterm infants’ by Felix Omenaca MD. PhD, and colleagues (1) The paper stated the following:

“The researchers grouped preterm infants by ages — infants born at gestational ages 27 to 30 weeks and those born at 30 to 36 weeks. They administered rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414, GlaxoSmithKline) in two doses to 658 preterm infants, and 330 received a placebo along with routine vaccinations, including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type B and poliovirus. Infants from France and Spain also received Streptococcus pneumoniae concomitantly; infants from Portugal and Spain also received Neisseria meningitides.

The researchers then asked parents/guardians to report adverse effects, and they noted no statistically significant difference in the reporting of severe adverse reactions in the vaccine or placebo group (5.1% and 6.2%, respectively). Unsolicited adverse effects, which included fever of more than 39.5·C, six or more bouts of diarrhea per day, three or more episodes of vomiting per day, appetite loss and irritability, were reported in 29.3% of preterm infants in the vaccine group and 40.7% in the placebo group. (own emphasis)

The problems I see are as follows:

All the infants were given multiple vaccinations, therefore, there was no control group.

Of a group of 988 children, approx 2/3 were given the vaccine for rotavirus and 1/3 were given the placebo, then the researchers compared the results like for like. This cannot be done because one group is significantly larger than the other.

Because all of the infants received multiple vaccinations it is impossible to tell which vaccine if any caused the side effects.

I decided to examine the exact figures in greater detail.

The total of infants given all the vaccines including the rotavirus vaccine was 658 which equal 66.6% of the total number of babies being tested.

The total of infants given all the vaccines except the rotavirus vaccine was 330 which equal 33.3% of the total number of babies being tested.

Severe Reactions

In the group receiving the rotavirus vaccine 5.1% of the infants had a severe reaction; this was a total of 33 children.

In the group receiving the placebo 6.2% of the infants had a severe reaction; this was a total of 20 children.

Less Severe Reactions

Now let us look at what the researchers call ‘unsolicited adverse effects’.

The researchers say that these effects included fever of more than 39.5·C, six or more bouts of diarrhea per day, three or more episodes of vomiting per day, appetite loss and irritability.

In the group receiving the rotavirus vaccine 29.3% of the infants had an unsolicited adverse effect which is a total of 192 children.

In the group receiving the placebo 40.7% of the infants had an unsolicited adverse effect which is a total of 134 children

Presuming that the children in the severe group were different to the children in the unsolicited group, this means that a total of 225 children of the 688 who received all of the vaccines including the rotavirus vaccine had an adverse reaction.

(Figures checked on Google)

This amounts to a massive number of premature babies suffering from adverse reactions and yet despite this the researchers, reported that ‘because of the higher risk that human rotavirus poses to preterm infants, the study supports this vaccine’s use in those older than 27 weeks who are “medically stable at the time of or after discharge from the neonatal unit’.

These are the vaccination trials that we the public rely on to test our vaccinations before use. Does anyone at the WHO, the FDA or the CDC ever even look at these studies in detail or do they just read the concluding paragraph?

This study was flawed from the beginning due to the number of variables affecting the sample groups being tested. The researchers did disclose the age of the children and the other vaccines that could affect the results, however; they did not disclose any other conflicting variables. These variables may include cultural, social and economical backgrounds, weight and medical histories including any drugs that the babies were already being treated with.

Just by reading this study through anyone with an ounce of sense can see that it is weighted in favor of the researchers.

This was a trial on premature infants for goodness sake!

To use these small vulnerable babies as little more than lab rats is bad enough but to then falsify the results to get the vaccines sanctioned to give to all premature babies is positively criminal.

Not only that, but this was a trial of a GlaxoSmithKline product, funded by GlaxoSmithKline with the majority of the researchers researching the product actually having financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline. Unbelievable!!!!

The disclaimer at the end of the report read.

“Disclosure: A number of researchers reported financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, which funded the study”.

A couple of days ago I wrote an article about a prem baby from Belgium (2) who died after receiving a cocktail of vaccines including the rotavirus vaccine. Is it any wonder that this baby lost her life when parents have to rely on studies like this?"

"Pregnancy is often fraught with complications, not least for women suffering from depression while carrying a child: new research suggests that women who take antidepressant medications during pregnancy may have an increased risk of miscarriage.

Scientists at the University of Montreal reported Monday, May 31, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that women taking the drugs most often prescribed to treat depression and anxiety — including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and the older tricyclics — had a significantly higher risk of miscarriage than a matched control group of women who did not take antidepressants. The study is the first of its kind to analyze which antidepressants and which doses are most likely to be associated with spontaneous abortion. Led by Anick Bérard at the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Montreal, the research team also documented that two SSRIs, paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor), are associated with the greatest risk. (See TIME's list of the 50 worst inventions.)

Bérard analyzed data from a pregnancy registry she established in Quebec that collects records on births and spontaneous abortions occurring in hospitals in the Canadian province. The study included 69,742 women from the registry, 5,124 of whom had had a clinically recorded miscarriage. Among the women who had miscarried, 5.5% had filled at least one prescription for an antidepressant during pregnancy, compared with 2.7% of the control group. Researchers calculated that antidepressant users had a 68% higher risk of miscarriage than nonusers, after controlling for other influences that could potentially confound the association.

Overall, the risk was greatest among women who combined the use of two or more classes of antidepressants. When researchers looked at the small amounts of data on patients using specific drugs, they found that those taking paroxetine alone had a 75% higher rate of miscarriage than women without depression, while women taking venlafaxine had a more than doubled risk. "To my knowledge, we are the only ones to go further and look at which class [of antidepressant] and which dosage increased the risk most," says Bérard. (Read how postpartum depression can strike fathers.)

However, the study was an observational one that looked retrospectively at data already collected, which means that it's possible that some part of the miscarriage risk picked up by Bérard can be ascribed to depression itself rather than the drugs used to treat it. Indeed, the authors acknowledge that some past research has shown that women who are depressed during pregnancy are at increased risk of spontaneous abortion. But while acknowledging that limitation of the current study, Bérard stresses that it's unlikely that such a large difference — the 68% increase — could be wholly attributable to underlying causes. "The effect is too big," she says, "and while it may explain a small portion, it wouldn't explain the totality of the effect."

Still, obstetricians are not ready to stop writing prescriptions for antidepressants. Taken together, research on the risks of using antidepressants — and most other prescription drugs — for expectant moms and their developing babies is limited and often inconsistent. Evidence for the risks associated with depression drugs has been increasing in recent years, however, with studies finding a link between the medications, particularly when used during the first trimester, and as much as a sixfold increase in lung, heart and other congenital birth defects in newborns. Bérard's study adds solid evidence for a new risk factor, but because it is an observational study, says Dr. Alex Vidaeff, director of research in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, "with this level of evidence, immediate changes in practice may be ill-advised."

Such findings leave women with depression facing increasingly complicated treatment decisions when they are pregnant or considering starting a family. According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), depression during pregnancy is common: about 14% to 23% of pregnant women will experience depressive symptoms; in 2003, about 13% of women took an antidepressant at some point during pregnancy. But both antenatal depression and the use of antidepressant medications are associated with health risks to the newborn. Past studies have shown that pregnant women who are depressed are more likely to have premature births and low-birth-weight babies and that their infants are at increased risk of irritability, sleep problems and high blood levels of the stress hormone cortisol compared with babies born to mothers without depression.

As with many clinical decisions, depression treatment during pregnancy is a matter of balance. Experts advise women to discuss with their physician the severity of their depression or anxiety and weigh their past history of miscarriage before deciding whether to change medications or reduce their doses while carrying a child. For its part, the ACOG recommended in a 2009 report that women with severe depression stay on medication during pregnancy and that women who are psychiatrically stable may also be able to continue medication after consulting with their mental-health-care provider and obstetrician. Depressed women who are not taking antidepressants or are not helped by them should seek treatment, whether it is psychotherapy or other interventions that can help reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Although Bérard's analysis did not include a side-by-side comparison of antidepressant use in alleviating women's depressive or anxiety symptoms, other research has documented the importance of maintaining such treatment for women who otherwise would struggle to function at their best, much less under the added stress of expecting a child."

Naomi Snell, a 28-year-old woman in Melbourne, Australia, is leading a class-action civil lawsuit against drug maker Merck after suffering autoimmune and neurological complications following injections with the HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

After receiving the first of three doses of the vaccine, Naomi suffered convulsions, severe back and neck pain, and lost her ability to walk.

Doctors actually diagnosed her with multiple sclerosis, which was later retracted and labeled a neurological reaction to the vaccine.

Seven other women, who say they have suffered various physical problems, including anaphylaxis and miscarriage, after receiving Gardasil may also join the civil lawsuit, and this is likely only the beginning, as Gardasil is being implicated in a growing number of serious, permanent and sometimes deadly adverse reactions.

Multiple Sclerosis-Like Symptoms and Paralysis Not Unusual After HPV Vaccination

Unfortunately, stories like Naomi's are all too common in relation to Gardasil.

One of the vaccine injury cases featured in the movie The Greater Good is that of Gabi Swank, a 15-year-old honor student who decided to get the Gardasil vaccine after seeing a "Be One Less" Gardasil vaccine advertisement on TV.

Like so many young girls, she wasn't warned about any possible side effects when she got the shots, which are given as a series of three injections.

At the time the documentary was filmed, she had already suffered two strokes and experienced partial paralysis. She also lost part of her vision and today suffers frequent seizures. When she was in high school, many days she had to use a wheelchair to get around school due to muscle pain and chronic fatigue.

A similar reaction happened to 13-year-old Jenny Tetlock, who began seeing signs of trouble just one month after she was vaccinated against the HPV virus. Fifteen months later, a degenerative muscle disease left her nearly completely paralyzed.

Neurological symptoms such as these were also reported in a study done in 2009 by neurologist Dr. Ian Sutton. He reported five cases of multiple sclerosis-like symptoms emerging shortly after women received the Gardasil vaccine, noting:

"We report five patients who presented with multifocal or atypical demyelinating syndromes within 21 days of immunization with the quadrivalent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. Although the target population for vaccination, young females, has an inherently high risk for MS, the temporal association with demyelinating events in these cases may be explained by the potent immuno-stimulatory properties of HPV virus-like particles which comprise the vaccine."

Further, Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, recently issued an update on adverse reaction reports relating to Gardasil.

The documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) detail 26 new deaths reported to the government following HPV vaccination between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011. That's 26 reported deaths of young, previously healthy, girls after Gardasil vaccination in just one year.

Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 deaths after Gardasil vaccination were reported. For that timeframe, there were also 789 reports of "serious" Gardasil adverse reactions, including 213 cases of permanent disability and 25 diagnosed cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome, Judicial Watch reported.

Serious Vaccine Reactions, Deaths, Often Labeled "Coincidence"

While it is not clear exactly what is causing so many adverse reactions, it is known that Gardasil contains genetically engineered virus-like protein particles as well as aluminum, which can affect immune function.

Further, according to the vaccine manufacturer product information insert, the vaccine has not been evaluated for the potential to cause cancer or to be toxic to genes.

In fact, Merck only studied the Gardasil vaccine in fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 prior to it being released to the market under a fast-tracked road to licensure. To date, most of the serious side effects, including deaths, that occurred during the pre-licensure clinical trials and post marketing surveillance have been written off as a "coincidence" by Merck researchers and government health officials.

But on the National Vaccine Information Center's (NVIC) Web site, you can read about Gabi Swank's Gardasil reaction and other descriptions of women and girls who have suffered serious health deterioration after Gardasil shots and, in some cases, have died shortly after receiving this vaccine. The growing Gardasil vaccine injury toll has become too large to ignore:

Christina Tarsell, a 21-year-old college student majoring in studio arts at Bard College, who died suddenly and without explanation shortly after receiving the third Gardasil shot in June 2008.

Megan, a 20-year-old college student who died suddenly, without explanation, about one month after receiving her third Gardasil shot. No cause of death was found.

Ashley, a 16-year-old who became chronically ill after receiving Gardasil, and now suffers regular life-threatening episodes of seizure-like activity, difficulty breathing, back spasms, paralysis, dehydration, memory loss and tremors.

There are more than 100 types of human papillomaviruses (HPVs). Of them, about 40 types of HPV are sexually transmitted and 15 of these types are most associated with cervical cancers and genital warts in women and men. HPV infections that remain unidentified and untreated for a long time are also associated with development of vaginal, vulvar, penile, anal and oropharyngeal cancers. Some HPV infections can cause minor skin infections and common warts on your hands and feet.

Certain types of chronic HPV infections, which are not identified or treated for a long time, can lead to cervical cancer. It is only when the HPV virus lingers for many years that abnormal cervical cells could turn into cancer. This is why PAP smears identify cervical changes and can prevent cervical cancer deaths far more effectively than the HPV vaccine ever will, because there's a sufficient amount of time to find and treat any cervical abnormalities if you're getting regular PAP smears.

It is important to know, however, that over 90 percent of women infected with HPV clear the infection naturally within two years, at which point cervical cells go back to normal.

The death rate from cervical cancer in the United States is 3 per 100,000 and it is estimated that, in 2011, about 12,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer and 4,000 died. In 2009, there were about 34,000 deaths from car accidents in the U.S. for a death rate of 11 per 100,000.

Women have a much higher risk of dying in a car accident than dying from cervical cancer!

Cervical cancer rates are even lower in some European countries. The reason why the mortality rate is so low is because -- for the vast majority of healthy women living in developed countries like Europe and the U.S. -- their immune systems are usually strong enough to naturally clear HPV infection within two years. Again, this happens in more than 90 percent of all cases!

Of course, even if you get HPV vaccine, if you contract one of the 40 or more types of HPV that are sexually transmitted and aren't included in the vaccine, you will not be protected from HPV infections. And, if you've already been exposed to one of the four types of viruses in the vaccine, it doesn't work against those either.

This means that, even if you accept the risks and get vaccinated, your chances of experiencing some form of HPV infection are still very high. Whether or not the HPV virus will lead to genital warts or cervical cancer or other kinds of health problems, however, depends in large part on the state of your immune system and, in the case of cervical cancer, is affected by whether or not you get routine PAP screenings.

Many Teens Mistakenly Think HPV Vaccine Cuts Risk for All STDs...

Unfortunately, according to a recent study nearly one in four girls who get the HPV vaccine mistakenly believes it will also reduce their risk of getting other sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis and gonorrhea. Clearly, more education is needed in this area.

The study polled close to 340 girls, average age nearly 17, after their first of three HPV doses, and their mothers. The poll was intended to determine the girls' perceived risk of getting HPV after the vaccination, their perceived risk of getting other STDs, and their perceived need for continued safer sex behaviors. While the majority of the girls correctly thought the vaccine would not protect them against STDs other than HPV, 24 percent responded they thought the vaccine would reduce their risk of other STDs. According to the authors, those with this misperception were also less likely to be informed about HPV infection and the HPV vaccine in general.

According to the authors:

"Education about HPV vaccines and encouraging communication between girls and their mothers may prevent misperceptions among these adolescents."

If You Live in California, Your Minor Daughter or Son Can Be Given Gardasil Vaccine Without Your Knowledge or Consent

In October 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed bill AB499 that permits minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease (STD) vaccines like Gardasil -- without parental knowledge or parental consent. This means that, if you live in California, school or medical personnel will soon be allowed to give your child Gardasil, hepatitis B vaccine and future vaccines for STD's without you ever knowing it.

At issue, of course, is whether 12-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the benefits of alternatives to STD prevention, such as abstinence or use of condoms. Meanwhile, a child could suffer a serious vaccine reaction and the parent, not knowing the child had been vaccinated, could mistake it for the flu or another less serious health problem, delaying getting the child to an emergency room until it is too late.

Of course, also at issue is whether this law violates long held legal rights for parents to be responsible for making important medical decisions for their children, especially when risk-taking is involved. If a child is injured from complications of a medical procedure or use of a pharmaceutical product, it is the parent who will be legally and financially responsible for providing care for the child. Therefore, the legal right for parents to exercise informed consent to medical risk-taking for minor children, which includes giving consent for use of a pharmaceutical product, such as a vaccine, that carries a risk of injury or death, is an important legal right to defend and protect in America.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is currently exploring legal options for overturning this new law, which violates parental informed consent rights.

Will Merck Get its Day in Court?

The class-action civil lawsuit in Australia being brought against Merck for injuries and deaths following Gardasil vaccination may help to bring more attention to the risks of this vaccine, which was fast-tracked in the U.S. and brought to market without adequate scientific evidence proving safety and effectiveness. Like in Australia, there are many girls and women in the U.S. speaking out about what happened to them after getting Gardasil shots. If you or a loved one has been harmed by Gardasil or any other vaccine or pharmaceutical product, please consider sharing your story with others so there is greater public awareness about vaccine and prescription drug risks.

Of course, Merck is no stranger to legal action. The company paid out billions in lawsuit claims to tens of thousands harmed by the drug Vioxx, and over the years has had more than $5.5 billion in judgments and fines levied against it. Unfortunately, in the U.S. Merck is protected from civil lawsuits for Gardasil vaccine injuries and deaths because of the liability shield granted to pharmaceutical companies by the U.S. government.

"In 1986, there were three major drug corporations selling vaccines in the U.S. (Merck, Lederle, Connaught) and now there are eight (Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, CSL Biotherapies, Emergent BioSolutions).

That is because, in 1986, Pharma blackmailed Congress into giving them partial liability protection from vaccine injury lawsuits by suggesting they would have to abandon the U.S. childhood vaccine market without a liability shield.

In February of this year [2011], drug companies got what they wanted all along: the U.S. Supreme Court gave Pharma total immunity from lawsuits – even if they could have made a vaccine less harmful.

Vaccines, said the Court, are "unavoidably unsafe."

So if your child is brain injured by a vaccine that you may not have wanted your child to get in the first place, all you can do is file a claim in the federal vaccine injury compensation program. Even though the program has awarded more than $2 billion dollars to vaccine victims, two out of three plaintiffs are turned away empty handed.

With no liability or accountability for those making, licensing, selling and giving vaccines in America, there are no checks and balances to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective. Doctors, who have been taught to believe that infectious microorganisms should be eradicated from the earth with the mandatory use of multiple vaccines, are as ripe for exploitation as the people they vaccinate."

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved in educating your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

NVIC will help you learn how to effectively write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. You might want to call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get put on the radar screens of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please consider sharing your experience with others. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you - you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Memorial.aspx): View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.